Provision of deep procedural sedation by a pediatric sedation team at a freestanding imaging center
- PMID: 24859263
- DOI: 10.1007/s00247-014-2942-z
Provision of deep procedural sedation by a pediatric sedation team at a freestanding imaging center
Abstract
Background: Freestanding imaging centers are popular options for health care systems to offer services accessible to local communities. The provision of deep sedation at these centers could allow for flexibility in scheduling imaging for pediatric patients. Our Children's Sedation Services group, comprised of pediatric critical care medicine and pediatric emergency medicine physicians, has supplied such a service for 5 years. However, limited description of such off-site services exists. The site has resuscitation equipment and medications, yet limited staffing and no proximity to hospital support.
Objective: To describe the experience of a cohort of pediatric patients undergoing sedation at a freestanding imaging center.
Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review of all sedations from January 2012 to December 2012. Study variables include general demographics, length of sedation, type of imaging, medications used, completion of imaging, adverse events based on those defined by the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database and need for transfer to a hospital for additional care.
Results: Six hundred fifty-four consecutive sedations were analyzed. Most patients were low acuity American Society of Anesthesiologists physical class ≤ 2 (91.8%). Mean sedation time was 55 min (SD ± 24). The overwhelming majority of patients (95.7%) were sedated for MRI, 3.8% for CT and <1% (three patients) for both modalities. Propofol was used in 98% of cases. Overall, 267 events requiring intervention occurred in 164 patient encounters (25.1%). However, after adjustment for changes from expected physiological response to the sedative, the rate of events was 10.2%. Seventy-five (11.5%) patients had desaturation requiring supplemental oxygen, nasopharyngeal tube or oral airway placement, continuous positive airway pressure or brief bag valve mask ventilation. Eleven (1.7%) had apnea requiring continuous positive airway pressure or bag valve mask ventilation briefly. One patient had bradycardia that resolved with nasopharyngeal tube placement and continuous positive airway pressure. Fifteen (2.3%) patients had hypotension requiring adjustment of the sedation drip but no fluid bolus. Overall, there were six failed sedations (0.9%), defined by the inability to complete the imaging study. There were no serious adverse events. There were no episodes of cardiac arrest or need for intubation. No patient required transfer to a hospital.
Conclusion: Sedation provided at this freestanding imaging center resulted in no serious adverse events and few failed sedations. While this represents a limited cohort with sedations performed by predominately pediatric critical care medicine and pediatric emergency medicine physicians, these findings have implications for the design and potential scope of practice of outpatient pediatric sedation services to support community-based pediatric imaging.
Similar articles
-
Propofol sedation by emergency physicians for elective pediatric outpatient procedures.Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Dec;42(6):783-91. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(03)00634-6. Ann Emerg Med. 2003. PMID: 14634603 Clinical Trial.
-
Pediatric critical care physician-administered procedural sedation using propofol: a report from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium Database.Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Jan;16(1):11-20. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000273. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015. PMID: 25340297
-
Procedural sedation with propofol: a retrospective review of the experiences of an emergency medicine residency program 2005 to 2010.Am J Emerg Med. 2012 Jun;30(5):706-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2011.04.002. Epub 2011 Jun 8. Am J Emerg Med. 2012. PMID: 21641148
-
The safe and effective use of propofol sedation in children undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: experience in a pediatric ICU and a review of the literature.Pediatr Emerg Care. 2003 Dec;19(6):385-92. doi: 10.1097/01.pec.0000101578.65509.71. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2003. PMID: 14676486 Review.
-
Bispectral index as a guide for titration of propofol during procedural sedation among children.Pediatrics. 2005 Jun;115(6):1666-74. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-1979. Pediatrics. 2005. PMID: 15930231 Review.
Cited by
-
Safety challenges related to the use of sedation and general anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging examinations.Pediatr Radiol. 2021 May;51(5):724-735. doi: 10.1007/s00247-021-05044-5. Epub 2021 Apr 16. Pediatr Radiol. 2021. PMID: 33860861 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Differences in Pediatric Non-Interventional Radiology Procedural Sedation Practices and Adverse Events by Registered Nurses and Physicians.J Pediatr Nurs. 2017 Jul-Aug;35:129-133. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2016.09.003. Epub 2016 Oct 4. J Pediatr Nurs. 2017. PMID: 27717624 Free PMC article.
-
Risk factors for overnight respiratory events following sedation for magnetic resonance imaging in children with sleep apnea.Sleep Breath. 2017 Mar;21(1):137-141. doi: 10.1007/s11325-016-1410-4. Epub 2016 Sep 28. Sleep Breath. 2017. PMID: 27683261 Free PMC article.
-
Experience with the use of propofol for radiologic imaging in infants younger than 6 months of age.Pediatr Radiol. 2017 Jul;47(8):974-983. doi: 10.1007/s00247-017-3844-7. Epub 2017 May 9. Pediatr Radiol. 2017. PMID: 28488002
-
3-D cardiac MRI in free-breathing newborns and infants: when is respiratory gating necessary?Pediatr Radiol. 2015 Sep;45(10):1448-54. doi: 10.1007/s00247-015-3346-4. Epub 2015 Apr 23. Pediatr Radiol. 2015. PMID: 25903840
References
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical